Lynn Snyder v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highw

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2306 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2306

LYNN SNYDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; STATE OF MARYLAND; DARION BRANHAM; DANIEL HOUCK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00930-CCB)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Neil R. Lebowitz, LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, DeNisha A. Watson, Carolyn M. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2306 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Lynn Snyder appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting Defendants’ motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Snyder’s employment and tort

claims; and (2) denying Snyder’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the

record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it converted

Defendants’ motion to a summary judgment motion. See E.W. by & through T.W. v.

Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 n.2 (4th Cir. 2018) (“We generally review a district court’s

conversion of a motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion for abuse of discretion.”).

Further, we discern no error in the district court’s decision to grant Defendants summary

judgment and thus affirm the district court’s orders. Snyder v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., State

Highway Admin., No. 1:21-cv-00930-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2022; Nov. 22, 2022). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED